FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18445/07
DAMEN SHIPYARDS OKEAN
against Ukraine
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 10 January 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Mark Villiger, President,
Ganna Yudkivska,
André Potocki, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 April 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Damen Shipyards Okean Open Joint Stock Company, is a company with foreign shares registered in Ukraine. It is represented before the Court by Mr A. Ye. Milyutin, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs V. Lutkovska, from the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant’s representative, who was invited to submit observations on the applicant’s behalf. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 7 September 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 28 July 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant’s representative received this letter on 21 September 2011. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue its application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsMark Villiger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy